Thursday, 30 June 2016

Keep away from women
Seeing the silly behaviour of the NCW and female activists nowadays my advice to all young men is keep away from women and become brahmacharis.
Goswami Tulsidas has rightly said in the Ramcharitmanas :
" दीपशिखा सम युवती तन
मन जनि होत पतंग "
i.e.
" A young woman's body is like a flame
So dont behave like a moth and get burnt ( by going near it ) "
Men have been ruined by women like Cleopatra, Helen of Troy, Monica Lewinsky ( well, Bill Clinton narrowly escaped ), Christine Keeler, La Belle Dame Sans Merci, Kaikeyi, Paro ( of Devdas fame ), Circe ( who turned men into swine ), etc.
So watch out, and on seeing a woman give her a wide berth
Hari Om

My fb message this morning to my young Pakistani friend Amile Gulzar who lives in Lahore, and his reply

Have you seen my appeal this morning on my fb page to all non Muslims to keep roza tomorrow ( 1st July, the last Friday of Ramzan ). I will keep roza myself tomorrow. I have also appealed to non Hindus to keep one day fast during Navratri. Please circulate it widely to all your friends. What was the reaction in Pakistan to my last fb post in which I put up your messages ? Sent by Facebook Mentions

Amile Gulzar Thats a really good move sir. Some friends have supported this stance and some have totally disagreed as they think re-unification is impossible, however, a confederation among these states can help in promoting peace. A friend was referring to the ' two nation theory' that calling it bogus is against the ideology of Pakistan . But I will respond to him by Jinnah's speech on 11 Aug, 1947 which in my opinion is not 100% in line with the concept of two nation theory . It is as follows: "You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state." Seen by Amile Gulzar at 7:51am

My appeal to all non Muslims everywhere is to keep roza tomorrow as a mark of solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters.

Since several years I have been myself keeping one day roza during Ramzan, and have appealed to all non Muslims to do so. I will keep roza myself tomorrow.

I also appeal to all non Hindus to keep one day fast during Navratri. In fact several non Hindus responded positively to this appeal made earlier. Let the roza be ordinarily kept by non Muslims every year on the last Friday of Ramzan, and the fast by non Hindus on he first day of Navratri. These days should be known as Solidarity Days

Some vested interests have made efforts throughout the world to paint all Muslims as terrorists and killers, when the fact is that over 99% of Muslims everywhere ( like over 99% Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc ) are good people.

The great French thinker Rousseau, whom I regard as my guru, said that almost all people in the world are good by nature. But the tiny wicked minority are often powerful and sow seeds of discord among us by false propaganda and through their agent provocateurs. So we must guard against that, expose them, and maintain our solidarity.

I myself am an atheist, but I am a strong supporter of religious freedom and solidarity of all religious communities.

Non Muslims should find out from their Muslim friends about the time of sehr, i.e. the latest time in the morning before which breakfast and water should be taken, and the time of iftaar, that is, the time in the evening for breaking the fast. In between you must not take any food or liquids. From the internet I could gather that in Delhi the time for sehr is 3.53 a.m. and for iftaar is 7.24 p.m.

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Facebook messages from a young Pakistani
Facebook messages I received from a young Pakistani, Amile Gulzar, who lives in Lahore. It seems I have now quite a following in Pakistan, and many are now gradually approving of my idea of reunification.
We were befooled by the Britishers who by their wicked divide and rule policy and bogus two nation theory partitioned India, but how much longer must we remain befooled ? How much longer must blood still flow ?
Why is it that Pakistanis are now gradually agreeing with me ? It is because truth has great power. If what I say is the truth, it may not be accepted today or tomorrow ( because my idea may never have been heard of before, and so initially shocks people ), but sooner or later it will be accepted. Copernicus' theory that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa, was not accepted for a long time ( because it apparently contradicted the Bible ), but because it represented the truth, it was ultimately accepted.
We must reunite ( under a secular govt.).. We are one nation
P.S.
I have taken Amile's permission to publish his name

Amile Gulzar
View Profile

Amile
Sir, if I become the Prime Minister of Pakistan; I would try my level best to re-unite india ,Pak and Bangladesh and mark a new history ☺️☺️
.
8:27pm

Amile
Sir hope you are doing great. I am a lawyer based in Pakistan. I am very much impressed by your knowledge and analytical skills. Allah bless you ... Remember me in your prayers :
.
Markandey Katju
Thank you. Do many Pakistanis follow me on fb ?
.
Amile
Yes Sir! You are a renowned personality.. My father is senior suprintendent of jail (prisons) nowadays posted at Pakistan's largest prison- central jail sahiwal. I usually discuss your posts with him as well.

10:30pm

Markandey Katju
Can I post your messages on my fb page ?

Amile
Sure sir! It will be a great honour
.
Markandey Katju
With your name ?
.
Amile
Sure
I reside in Lahore
.
Sent by Amile Gulzar at 10:37pm.
.
.

Am I an appeaser of Muslims ?
Some people accuse me of trying to appease Muslims. This charge is of course silly and false. Why should I ? I am not in politics, nor ever intend to be. I do not want the votes of Muslims. But I am against injustice to anyone
I often denounce backward and oppressive practices among Muslims, like oral talaq and wearing burqa ( just as I denounce backward practices among Hindus like the caste system and looking down on dalits ). Yet over 95% Muslims love me, because they know that if any atrocity is committed against Muslims anywhere my voice will be among the first to condemn it. Wherever I go where there are a large number of Muslims, many rush to take selfies with me on their mobile., and many surround me to express their love for me.
And it is not a matter of Muslims alone. I believe that no atrocity should be committed on anyone, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian or anyone.
In particular, no atrocity should be committed on minorities anywhere, because minorities, being fewer in number, are more vulnerable to attacks. Thus, I have condemned attacks and oppression of minorities like Hindus, Christians, Shias, Ahmadis, etc in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir ( i.e. Pandits ), etc. A hallmark of a civilized society is that minorities are able to live with dignity and honour. The great French thinker Voltaire condemned oppresion of the Protestant minority in France, by proclaiming ' Ecraz L'infame ' i.e. crush the infamy.
Article 25 (1) of the Indian Constitution states: “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”
Though an atheist myself, I have always supported freedom of religion, and the rights of religious minorities in India, because I firmly believe that a mark of a civilized society is that minorities therein can live with dignity and respect.
Christians are only about 2% of the 1.25 billion people in India. In January 2009 a case came before a bench of the Supreme Court of which I was a member, in which the allegations were that Christians in Orissa were being persecuted by right wing Hindu groups. It was alleged that about 50,000 Christians had fled from their homes, some had been killed, their houses burnt, and they were living in camps or in the jungle.
During the hearing of the case I remarked “We will not tolerate persecution of minorities. If the state government is unable to protect them it should resign. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all”.
These oral observations had their effect, and the persecution of Christians in the State stopped, and compensation was awarded to those whose properties had been destroyed or damaged.
When I was a Judge of the Allahabad High Court a case came before me pertaining to some village in U.P. In that village the majority consisted of Muslims, while the minority were Hindu Harijans. A Harijan girl was gang raped by some Muslim boys, who were prosecuted. I awarded the accused harsh punishment, holding that since Muslims were in the majority in that village it was their duty to see to it that Hindus could live with dignity and respect, but the accused did just the opposite.
In India Hindus are a majority out of the total population, but they may be a minority in a specific area. It is the duty of the majority in every specific area to ensure that the minority lives with dignity and honour. So it is not only Muslim and Christian minorities whom I have sought to protect, but also Hindus and other communities where they are in a minority in a particular area.

Where were the Muslims when the British abolished the Sharia criminal law ( e.g. stoning a woman to death for adultery, cutting off a thief's hand, etc ) and replaced it by the Indian Penal Code ? Did they rise up in revolt against the British in protest ?

Where were they when the British abolished Sharia in the tenancy laws in rural areas, and substituted a common code for all in the matter of inheritance, etc ? Were you cowards then ?

The British abolished 75% of Sharia as stated above. No one protested then.

But when it comes to abolition of the remaining 25% which contains the obnoxious discrimination against women e.g. oral talaq, you suddenly become brave.

If Muslims wish to move forward and improve their lives, they must destroy the hold of the reactionary, feudal minded Maulanas who objected to even the progressive humanitarian Shahbano judgment, saying it is against Sharia, and try to maintain their hold on the Muslim masses for their vested interests and vote bank politics.

A uniform civil code, as in all modern countries, is a must for all Indians

Friends of the ABC Two of the greatest novels I have read are Tolstoy's ' War And Peace ' and Victor Hugo's ' Les Miserables ' Of the two, I regard Les Miserables the greater. That is because while War and Peace features mainly the Russian aristocracy before and after Napoleoon's invasion ( even the Russian officers were aristocrats ), Les Miserables presents all shades of society, even the gamins. Around the middle of the book is mention of the Friends of the ABC Society, an organization of revolutionary French youth, led by Enjolras, many of whom later die at the barricades in the 1830 Revolution in France. Marius, a young man, who is one of the two central characters in the novel along with Jean Valjean, is a supporter of this grouphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_ABC I think there must be many Friends of the ABC in India today, though many may be unknown.. After all, India has had its Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Bismil, Khudiram Bose, Ashfaqulla, etc

Tuesday, 28 June 2016

The Shape of things to come

I have put up several posts on fb and my blog regarding the significance of Brexit and its historical significance and aftermath.

Now let me go a little further.

1. The developed countries like England and France became colonial powers because they wanted new markets, sources of raw materials and cheap labour for their growing industries. For this purpose they conquered countries in Asia and Africa.

A typical example was India. Before the British came here we had a highly developed handicraft industry in India, providing employment to a large number of people, and exporting to a large number of countries. This was smashed by the British, so as to capture the Indian market for their own mill industry and eliminate competition. The British kept India largely unindustrialized and backward throughout their rule.

The same was done by France in the countries they conquered.

2. The international crisis began when newly developing countries like Germany and Japan also wanted colonies. But much of Asia and Africa had already been colonised by other powers. So the matter could only be resolved by repartition of the world by wars e.g. the First World War

3. Upto the Second World War there was a period of extreme nationalism and rivalry between the developed countries. But after this war, a period of internationalism began, since multi national corporations crashed through national borders in search of markets, raw materials and cheap labour, to enhance their profits.

4. This no doubt gave super profits to these corporations, but it also spread unemployment widely in their own countries. This was for two reasons (1) These corporations, using the latest discoveries and inventions in science and technology, began using more capital intensive rather than labour intensive machinery. This was because cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production, and so if the same production could be done with less labour the cost of production could be reduced, thus enhancing profits (2) foreign labour was cheaper than indigenous labour. Such foreign labour could be obtained by either importing foreigners, or outsourcing jobs abroad.

5. This increased unemployment has led to a world wide economic recession. This is because a worker is not only a producer, he is also a consumer. Thus, for instance, a worker in a steel mill not only produces steel, he and his family also consume food, clothes, and a host of other things. Now if he loses his job his purchasing power is drastically reduced. And if this happens on a large scale, the effective demand in the economy goes down, leading to a recession. Then the businesses cut down their production and lay off some workers, thus further intensifying the recession. It is a chain reaction. This is what has happened in the world.

6. Earlier such crises were often resolved by wars, and even World Wars, but after the invention of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction this has become impossible. So how will the crises be resolved ?

7. England's leaving the EU is bound to result in the breaking up of the EU and a reversion to extreme nationalism, right wing politics, and even some sort of fascism, in many countries, as was seen before the Second World War ( though of course the form will be different ). Angela Merkel's desparate attempt to keep the EU intact is bound to fail.

8. The crisis will be resolved only after intense internal conflicts, not by exporting them abroad to underdeveloped countries, or by wars. To begin with, right wing goons will now attack immigrants and other foreigners, blaming them for taking away their jobs, and making them a scapegoat, like Hitler made the Jews in Germany. Attacks may also be made on foreign companies ( Indians are said to have 6000 companies in England ), often inspired by local businessmen who regard them as competitors, and responsible for their own woes.

8. But this will solve nothing, and instead create immense disorder, dislocation and chaos. Today the situation is that world wide, economies of all countries are interlinked. To throw out foreign companies and foreign workers is easier said than done. If, German workers and businesses are attacked in England today, the Germans will pay back the Britishers in their own coin by attacking them in Germany.

9. Before the Second World War, the imperialist powers kept Asia and Africa largely unindustrialized. But after the war a certain degree of industrialization has taken place in most of these countries, and industrial consciousness has arisen in the people there. So now it is no longer possible to recolonize them, as that will be stoutly resisted.

10. Thus, an apparently unresolveable crisis has arisen in the world. A period of Great Chaos has begun in history, and one cannot predict how it will end

However, one thing is certain.

After the Industrial Revolution, which began in England in the18th century, a unique situation has arisen in world history. Earlier, the methods of production were so primitive ( the bullock being used to till the land in India, and the horse in Europe ) that so little wealth could be generated that only a handful of people ( kings, aristocrats,etc ) could be rich, and the rest of the people had to be poor. But now modern industry is so powerful and so big that enough wealth can be generated to give a decent life and a high standard of living to everyone. So naturally now the poor people in the world are saying that when we need not be poor, why are we being kept poor ?

The rest of this century will therefore be characterised by the struggles of poor peoples all over the world for a better life

Monday, 27 June 2016

In socialist countries the method of raising the purchasing power of the masses, and thereby rapidly expanding the economy and consequently abolishing unemployment, was broadly this :

1. Prices of commodities were fixed by the government.

2. These prices were reduced by 5-10% every 2 years or so

3. This resulted in steadily increasing the purchasing power of the masses, because with the same income people could buy more goods. In other words, the real income of the masses went up even if nominally it remained the same ( since real wage is relative to the price index ).

4. Simultaneously, production was stepped up, and this increased production could be sold in the domestic market, as the purchasing power of people was steadily rising.

5. This led to rapid expansion of the economy, leading to creation of millions of jobs and thereby abolition of unemployment.

During the Great Depression which hit the Western economies in 1929 ( it continued till the breakout of the Second World War in 1939 ) when about one third or more people in Western countries were unemployed and factories were shutting down, the Soviet economy was rapidly expanding and unemployed abolished by following the above methodology.

Of course this was only possible in a socialist economy, where the problem was solved by state action.

I am not saying that we must necessarily follow the method adopted by socialist countries. We can adopt any other method if thereby we can raise the purchasing power of the Indian masses and thereby rapidly expand the Indian economy, which is the only way of abolishing unemployment in India.. The central point, and therefore the main problem before India, is how to raise the purchasing power of the masses ? Do we follow the method of socialist countries, or some other method ?

Marx's description of the unscrupulous French politician Adolphe Thiers ( 1797-1877 ), who planned the massacre of the people of Paris in 1871 in a sea of blood, accurately describes most of our own Indian politicians :

" That monstrous gnome-- consistent only in his greed for wealth, having entered his first ministry, under Louis Philippe, poor as Job, left it a millionaire. His last ministry under the same king (of March 1, 1840) exposed him to public taunts of peculation in the Chamber of Deputies, to which he was content to reply by tears – a commodity he deals in as freely as Jules Favre, or any other crocodile. At Bordeaux, his first measure for saving France from impending financial ruin was to endow himself with three millions a year.

A master in small state roguery, a virtuoso in perjury and treason, a craftsman in all the petty strategems, cunning devices, and base perfidies of parliamentary warfare; never scrupling, when out of office, to fan a revolution, and to stifle it in blood when at the helm of the state; with class prejudices standing him in the place of ideas, and vanity in the place of a heart; his private life as infamous as his public life is odious – even now, when playing the part of a French Sulla, he cannot help setting off the abomination of his deeds by the ridicule of his ostentation. "

I had said in my earlier posts that our national aim must be to make India a modern, highly industrialized, prosperous country in which all our citizens, not just a small minority, are getting decent lives and enjoying a high standard of living ( see my two articles ' Our National Aim ' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ).

I also said that this is only possible by a revolution, not reforms. Our state institutions ( Parliament, the judiciary, bureaucracy, etc ) have largely become hollow and empty shells, and the Constitution, which did serve a useful purpose for some time, has now exhausted itself ( see my article ' A French Revolution is coming in India ' on my blog ).. No amount of tinkering with the present system in India will do. The solution to our massive problems lie outside the system, not within it.

However, for a revolution to break out there must be two prerequisites.

The first is that the people must be in great economic and social distress. This certainly exists today in India, with the massive poverty, alarming level of unemployment, malnutrition in half our children, almost total lack of healthcare and good education for our masses, terrible plight of farmers, which has driven hundreds of thousands to suicide, etc.

However this by itself normally does not lead to revolution, however grave it may be. There is a second requirement for that, and that is that an international crisis should break out. It was the First World War which led to the Russian Revolution, and the Second World War which led to the Chinese Revolution.

What form this international crisis will take, cannot be foretold, as we can never be rigid about forms.

But this crisis is now unfolding before us, beginning with the events in Britain. It was no doubt building up with the world wide economic recession which had been going on for several years, but now it has taken a political turn ( see my articles ' An analysis of Brexit ' and ' The world wide economic crisis and Brexit ' on my blog ). Britain's vote for leaving the UK, and the confusion following in its aftermath ( see my article ' The Great Chaos ' on my blog ) is an event not localized to the UK but has world wide implications.

As the events now unfold, great historical changes are inevitable, and the Indian Revolution is coming nearer ( though it will still take many years to occur, cause immense suffering among the people, as it happens in all revolutions, and call for great sacrifices by the patriotic sections of our people ). The second prerequisite of a revolution is now fast developing in India

It signifies that the old international order created by the big powers after the Second World War has collapsed, and a period of chaos has set in all over the world, which may last 10 years or so before another order is created. Let me explain.

The period before the Second World War was a period of extreme nationalism, but after the War a period of internationalism began. Multinational corporations crashed through national borders in search of markets, raw materials and cheap labour.

Two super powers had emerged after the War, USA and the Soviet Union, but after the collapse of the latter, its place was to some extent taken by China. Also, the EU emerged as a giant.

All this has gone now, largely because of the world wide recession and consequent large scale unemployment in many countries, and widespread discontent . USA has been having a recession for quite some time, and so has Europe. China, which was regarded by some as the world engine of growth, is down, with massive economic problems.

The events in UK should be seen in this light.

A historical period of confusion and chaos has set in all over the world, triggered by the vote in UK leaving the EU. This will surely spread to other countries. Spain, which is having massive unemployment for quite some times, is having an election again in 6 months, which may further add to the chaos worse confounded.

The US elections may result in Donald Trump's victory due to the emotional passions he has whipped up.

A historical period of the Great Chaos in the world has begun, which will no doubt last a long time, but after that a just social order will be created in which people will get decent lives. But till then there will be great suffering

While in the High Courts, Judges sit singly or in a division bench ( i.e. a bench of 2 judges ) or sometimes in a full bench ( i.e. a bench of 3 or more judges ) to hear cases, in the Supreme Court judges always sit in benches, usually of 2 judges, but occasionally of 3 or more . No judge sits singly in the Supreme Court.

The purpose of forming benches of 2 or more judges is that a single person, however intelligent and learned he may be, is likely to have views which are one sided and subjective, with his personal prejudices, predilections and views influencing his judgment . But when 2 or more persons sit together and discuss a matter, the decision becomes more objective, with personal angularities rubbed off, and all aspects considered. Errors of a single person are often corrected by another. This is the reason for forming benches of 2 or more persons.

But for a bench of 2 or more persons to function effectively, it is necessary that each of the judges on it must apply his/her mind independently, and express his/her own views.

When I sat for the first time with Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra in the Supreme Court, before entering the Courtroom I had a few minutes talk with her. I told her " Sister, although I am the senior member on our bench, in the Court we are equals. Please feel free to disagree with me whenever you wish, I will never be offended or take it amiss. In fact the very purpose of a division bench is that both judges should apply their minds, and not that the junior judge should sit like a dummy. In fact sometimes I may be on the wrong track, and then you can correct me. You can also put questions to the lawyer arguing a case directly, and not necessarily through me ".

At this she said that I was very gracious, and that no senior judge with whom she sat in the High Court or Supreme Court had ever spoken like this to her.

What I found in my long career in the judiciary is that often ( though not always ) senior judges on a bench resent it if the junior judge disagrees with him, or even puts a question to a counsel arguing a case directly. They feel that the junior judge is misbehaving if he does so, and expect him to sit like a dummy, and just sign on the dotted line on the judgment prepared by them. But this way the very purpose of forming a bench is undermined.

Once when I was sitting in a division bench with a senior judge in the Allahabad High Court, after hearing the arguments of the lawyers the senior judge would dictate orders without even consulting me. When I told him that he should consult me before dictating orders, he felt very offended.

The old tradition of the Allahabad High Court was that the Chief Justice would sit with the seniormost judge in the Court. The reason for this was that a very senior judge could disagree with the Chief Justice if he thought the Chief Justice was wrong, whereas junior judges, though theoretically they too could disagree with him, in practice would rarely have the courage to do so.

In recent times, however, this sound practice has largely been given up. When I was a Judge in the Supreme Court, I found the Chief Justices would usually sit with junior judges, who would rarely disagree with him, probably thinking it is not good manners to disagree with the Chief Justice..

In Constitution benches ( i.e. benches of 5 or more judges ), the senior judges should sit with the Chief Justice ( if he was on the bench ). But what I found was that often junior judges were made to sit with the Chief Justice who would rarely disagree with him, thus undermining the very purpose of forming such a bench.

I will conclude by relating an interesting incident in the Allahabad High Court a century ago ( related in the memoirs of my grandfather Dr. K.N. Katju )

Sir Henry Richards was at that time Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court ( he was Chief Justice from 1914 to 1919 ) and sitting with him on the bench hearing criminal appeals was the senior most puisne judge of the Court, Sir Pramoda Charan Banerji. While Sir Henry Richards was known to be a liberal judge who was not readily disposed to accept the police version in every criminal case, Sir Pramoda Charan was considered by the bar as a severe, or to use a vulgar expression, a 'convicting' judge.

A criminal appeal against a death sentence came up for hearing before this bench.

After the appeal was heard for some time, the 2 judges ceased to be fellow travellers in the same direction. Instead of talking with each other, they were talking at each other through the lawyers.

When one of them would put a question to the lawyer,the other judge would intervene by saying " Probably your answer to this would be----:, and so on.

Soon the judges ceased to be even on talking terms with each other, and each was ostentatiously sitting up in his chair looking around elsewhere.

After arguments were over, it was obvious there would be divergent judgments, and the matter would have to be referred to another bench.

The Chief Justice, being the senior judge on the bench, began dictating his judgment first. After a careful consideration of the prosecution evidence he ended up by saying that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the accused, and giving him the benefit of doubt would acquit him.

Then began Sir Pramoda Charan. He dictated his long judgment countering the comments of the Chief Justice, and everyone in Court thought that the matter would now be sent to another bench.

But lo and behold ! At the end of his lengthy judgment he was heard dictating the conclusion " However, inasmuch as the learned Chief Justice has come to a different conclusion in favour of the accused, I am not prepared to dissent. I therefore agree that the appeal should be allowed and the accused. "

Everyone present in Court was electrified, the most being Sir Henry Richards himself. He could not believe his ears. Throughout the delivery of Sir Pramoda Charan's judgment, Sir Henry Richards had been sitting deep in contemplation, with his eyes half closed, but as soon as he heard the concluding words he suddenly sat up, as if an electric shock had been given to him. His face glowed, and he simply beamed with joy, and almost looked like a blushing bride.

And then Sir Henry rose from his chair, his face wreathed in smiles, and bowed low before Sir Pramoda Charan.

Some people commented that it was wrong for Sir Pramoda Charan to have acquited the accused having found him guilty. After all, each judge on a bench must apply his mind independently

Others said that Sir Pramoda Charan had done the right thing, as it would be monstrous for one judge to say that he would hang the accused when the other judge was in favour of acquittal.

I leave it to the readers of this post to express their views on this.

Saturday, 25 June 2016

The AAP MLA Dinesh Mohania was arrested by the Delhi police. The charge against Mohaniya was that he had misbehaved with a group of women who had approached him with a complaint of water crisis in their locality.

I am not going into the question whether the charge was true or false, as that will be decided by the Court on the evidence. I do not have the evidence with me, and therefore I cannot comment on it.

I am, however, on a much more fundamental issue. Where was the need of arresting Mohaniya ? In my opinion the police could have made an investigation and could have interrogated Mohaniya without arresting him. Let me explain the legal position in this connection.

It may be mentioned that arrest is not a must in every case where an F.I.R. of a cognizable offence is registered with the police. This is obvious from section 157 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. which reads :

" 157. Procedure for investigation

(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender; "

The use of the words "and, if necessary " in the above provision clearly indicates that it is not incumbent on the police to arrest in every case, rather it is discretionary. And this discretion has to be excercised depending on the gravity of the offence. If the charge was of murder, dacoity , rape or some such serious offence, then of course the arrest could have been justified, but this was not a case of such a nature.

In Joginder Kumar vs. State of U. P. A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1349 ( see online ) the Supreme Court observed : " No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another.The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. "

Thus the Supreme Court has held that arrest is not a must in every case. In the same decision the Supreme Court has noted that the National Police Commission in its Third Report has observed that 60% arrests in India are unnecessary or unjustified, and that arrests are a major source of corruption in the police.

Unfortunately in our country the practice of our police has been that the moment an F.I.R. is lodged it goes to make an arrest. But this is an illegal practice, as pointed out above.

In my opinion arrest was unnecessary in this case. If the police wished to interrogate Mohaniya and investigate the allegations against him, they could have done so without arresting him. Aftefr all he was not going to abscond..

It is time now that the correct legal position be made known to all policemen.

The AAP leaders have alleged that the arrest of Mohaniya was at the instance of the Central Govt,

I do not know whether this allegation is true or not, but if it is true, the policemen concerned who carried out this illegal order of their political masters can not escape accountability on the pretext that orders are orders.

In the Nuremburg Trials after the Second World War the Nazi War criminals took plea that orders are orders, and that they were only carrying out the orders of their political master Hitler. However, this plea was rejected, and many of the accused were sentenced to be hanged.

So our policemen should heed this warning : they must not carry out illegal orders, whether written or oral, of political masters or their superiors, otherwise they themselves may be given severe punishment

I have the highest respect for Parsis, who though a tiny community in India, have made a great contribution to the country in the fields of law, business, armed forces, etc. So they may forgive me for this joke on them ( I heard it from someone, and it is not my own creation ).

Once the great lawyer Seervai, who was a Parsi, was walking down a corridor of the Supreme Court. Mr. C.K. Daphtary another distinguished lawyer( who became Attorney General of India ), was s...tanding at one place in the corridor with some of his juniors.

Daphtary, though himself a very senior lawyer, was junior to Seervai in practice. When Seervai came near him Daphtary bowed his head and said respectfully " Good morning Sir ".

Seervai ignored him and silently walked past.

Then Daphtary said to his juniors " All Parsis are mad, but he is a mad Parsi "

While seeing on T.V. that Scotland may choose to remain in the EU, I was reminded of this incident which happened when I was a Judge of the Supreme Court.

A team of British High Court Judges, led by the Lord Chief Justice of England, had come to Delhi, and they were invited to a function. There I was introduced to a certain Justice Macdonald, and I asked him whether he was Scottish. He laughed and said he was, and then said he wanted to tell me of an incident.

He. had been invited to Calcutta, where in a party he was introduced to a certian Mr. Campbell, whose ancestors had come from Scotland to India about 200 years ago, and they had settled down in India. Perhaps Mr. Campbell had never been to Scotland or England.

When Justice Macdonald extended his hand to Mr. Campbell, saying thai he too was Scottish, Mr. Campbell refused to shake his hand, and said " I have never shaken hand with a Macdonald in my life, and I never will "

Justice Geoffrey Care is my British friend whom I have met often, in India and abroad. He comes to India frequently.

Once when he was in Delhi we went together to a function at a venue near the Supreme Court ( perhaps the Indian Law Institute ).

There, a person from the audience shouted " Why have we invited a Britisher here ? The British had oppressed us during their rule ".

I immediately replied " That is not fair. Geoffrey's ancestors may have oppressed my ancestors, but Geoffrey has not oppressed me. Also, while we should certainly criticise the British for their oppression and exploitation in India, we must not forget their great historical contribution in the struggle for liberty in the 17th century, their fight against Nazis in the Second World War, etc and their great contributions in literature ( Shakespeare, Dickens, etc ), science ( Newton, Darwin, Rutherford, etc ), and in various other fields.

We have to see what is happening in our country today, not what happened 33 years back.

Moreover, cricket is an opium of the Indian masses.

The Roman Emperors used to say " If you cannot give the people bread, give them circuses "

The Indian establishment says " If you cannot give the people dal or employment, give them cricket "

How does it matter whether we won the World Cup in cricket, or whether our cricket team beats Pakistan ? Does it reduce poverty, unemployment or price rise or child malnutrion or ensure healthcare and good education for our masses ?

Cricket is an opium of the Indian masses. But that is not enough. To keep them safely drugged other opiums are also required. So these too have been properly arranged for, and they are religion, babas, astrology, film stars, T.V. shows, petty politics, etc, etc

It is a beautiful racket, to ensure that the 90% remain 90%, or even become 95%

As I said in my post on Brexit, this event is a product of the worldwide economic recession, and is a step towards extreme nationalism, growth in right wing politics, and fascism. What is the cause of this recession, and what is the solution ? This is what will be examined here.

For quite some time there has been an economic recession all over the world. From time to time we hear of a recovery, but in fact there has not been, and there is unlikely to be, a genuine recovery of the world economy for a long time. I will try to explain.

An economic recession is a feature of an industrial, not agrarian economy. In agrarian economies, too, there were catastrophies, but these were due to natural calamities like drought, epidemics, etc. An economic recession is a feature peculiar to industrial economies.

There have been recessions every eight or ten years ever since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century in Western Europe. These, however, were followed shortly thereafter by recoveries. But there has been one Great Depression which lasted from 1929 to 1939, and was ended only by the Second World War (in which 50 million lives were lost) which generated the massive demand for armaments, supplies to armies and war affected civilian populations, and capital for reconstruction, etc, and it was this massive demand which pulled USA out of the Great Depression. This Great Depression caused havoc in large parts of the globe, particularly in the developed countries.

We are now witnessing a persistent, and apparently unending, world economic recession, and its sweep is wider than that of the Depression of 1929, because while the latter affected mainly North America and Europe, the former is affecting the whole world, because while before the Second World War ( 1939-1945 ) many countries ( including India ) were largely unindustrialized, there has been a certain level of industrialization in most countries since then.

WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF SUCH ECONOMIC RECESSION OR DEPRESSION?

The principal cause of an economic recession (or depression) is lack of sales, which in turn is due to lack of purchasing power in the masses. There are other causes also, but these are only incidental, and not the main cause.

A large part of the world’s population is so poor that it hardly has sufficient purchasing power. Even in the developed countries there are many poor people.

Apart from the above, as the industrial economy develops, in the process industries tend to become larger and larger, to effect economy of scale, and more and more capital intensive ( that is, labour being replaced by machinery ). This is necessary for industries to face the competition in the market, otherwise their rivals will become larger and more capital intensive and drive them out of the market, by underselling them. This process is inevitable in most industries, but it leads to large scale unemployment, since many workers in a labor intensive industry are laid off when it becomes capital intensive. This generates unemployment.

Let me explain. There is competition between businessmen in the market. Let us take a simple illustration. Suppose A has a shop selling a loaf of bread for Rs.20. Next to his shop is the shop of B selling the same size and quality loaf for Rs. 18. What will happen ? The customers of A will gradually leave him and become the customers of B, and B will eliminate A by underselling him. Thus one businessman eliminates another not by tanks, guns or bombs but by underselling him.

Now the same thing happens on the national and even international level.

To reduce his sale price a businessman has to grow larger ( to effect economy of scale ) and to introduce new technology. This is because cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production. So if the cost of labour is less, the cost of production is less, and if the cost of production is less, the businessman can sell at a cheaper price, and thus eliminate his business rival.. By introducing new and labour saving technology in his plant, the businessman can cut down his labour costs, and thereby his cost of production.

Suppose a manufacturer had 500 workers working in his plant. With the advance of technology he may get a new machinery which requires only 100 workers to produce the same amount of goods which he was producing earlier. This means 400 workers will become unemployed. Even if 100 of these 400 workers can get jobs elsewhere this still leaves 300 workers unemployed. When we enlarge our scene (because the same process is inevitable in most industries) we find large scale unemployment is being generated everywhere.

Now the worker, apart from being a producer, is also a consumer. Of course a worker in a steel factory does not consume steel. But he and his family consume food, clothes, shoes and various other articles. When he becomes unemployed his purchasing power becomes drastically reduced. And when unemployment is generated on a large scale, the market correspondingly contracts on a large scale, and this leads to a recession.

Thus we see that the very dynamics of an unregulated industrial economy is that by the very inevitable process of its growth it keeps destroying its market.

The goods produced have to be sold. But how can they be sold when people have lost their purchasing power (due to widespread unemployment)?

Mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption. By taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers the industrialists deny to themselves the effective demand for their products that would justify reinvestment of their capital accumulation in new plants (which would also provide employment ).

Before the Great Depression of 1929 high level of employment was generated by high level of debt in the form of mortgage debts (for housing etc.), loans to buy cars and other consumer goods, brokers loans (for buying shares, etc.). The same thing happened in recent times. But this cannot continue endlessly. A time comes when people cannot repay their debts (due to unemployment or cut in real wages). Then debtors curtail their consumption, which reduces demand, and the producing units have to close down or drastically cut production.

In modern economies, most businesses require loans for their normal operations. Banks normally retain a small fraction of their deposits (5% or less) and give the rest as loans to borrowers. When the banking sector does not work properly (because of defaults by loanees) businesses do not easily get loans, and consequently they have to curtail their production and lay off workers. As they curtail production they require less raw materials and other supplies. Hence their suppliers have to reduce their output and lay off their workers. The suppliers to these suppliers have to do the same.Thus, this can set off a chain reaction.

If manufacturers cannot sell they cannot generate enough revenue to repay their loans. The business goes bankrupt and the bank finds in its hand non performing assets. Hence banks want to lend less. This becomes a vicious cycle.

Depositors get scared because some banks have collapsed due to the non performing assets. Hence they start withdrawing their money, and more banks collapse.

The economic recession is thus caused by the reduction of purchasing power in the masses which is due to the very dynamics of unregulated growth. The productive capacity has been enhanced enormously, but the vast majority of people are too poor to buy.

The problem, therefore, is not how to increase production, but how to increase the purchasing power of the masses. Production can be increased easily several times because there are tens of thousands of engineers, technicians, etc., and there are immense reserves of raw materials in India. But the goods produced have to be sold, and how can they be sold when the people are poor or unemployed, and thus have very little purchasing power?

The problem is also not how to increase demand. The demand is there, but people do not have the money for purchasing goods. In India, for instance, 75% people live on bare subsistence incomes. This may not even be sufficient for buying necessities, like food or medicines, what to say of durable consumer goods like motor cars, refrigerators, computers, air conditioners and other goods.

The solution to the economic crisis can only be by raising the purchasing power of the masses. How this is to be done requires a great deal of discussion and creative thinking , and all serious thinkers must now address this main problem facing our country, and indeed the whole world.

The situation in India today is that while we have recently increased the number of billionaires in our country, the poor have become poorer and even the middle class is finding it difficult to make two ends meet because of rising prices. This is a dangerous trend and if continued is going to lead to widespread social turmoil and social unrest. It is totally unfair to the vast masses of our people and it will not be tolerated very long.

Society owes subsistence to all its citizens either in procuring work for them on a reasonable wage, or in ensuring a livelihood to those who are unable to work.

As stated by the great French thinker Rousseau in his book 'Discourse on Inequality' : “Nothing can be farther from the law of nature,however we define it, than that a handful of people be gorged with luxuries, while the starving multitude lacks the necessities of life.”

So how do we increase the purchasing power of the masses, which alone can bring us out of the recession and the economic crisis ?

In socialist countries the method of raising the purchasing power of the masses, and thereby rapidly expanding the economy and consequently abolishing unemployment, was broadly this :

1. Prices of commodities were fixed by the government.

2. These prices were reduced by 5-10% every 2 years or so

3. This resulted in steadily increasing the purchasing power of the masses, because with the same income people could buy more goods. In other words, the real income of the masses went up even if nominally it remained the same ( since real wage is relative to the price index ).

4. Simultaneously, production was stepped up, and this increased production could be sold in the domestic market, as the purchasing power of people was steadily rising.

5. This led to rapid expansion of the economy, leading to creation of millions of jobs and thereby abolition of unemployment.

During the Great Depression which hit the Western economies in 1929 ( it continued till the breakout of the Second World War in 1939 ) when about one third or more people in Western countries were unemployed and factories were shutting down, the Soviet economy was rapidly expanding and unemployed abolished by following the above methodology.

Of course this was only possible in a socialist economy, where the problem was solved by state action.

I am not saying that we must necessarily follow the method adopted by socialist countries. We can adopt any other method if thereby we can raise the purchasing power of the masses and thereby rapidly expand the Indian economy, which is the only way of abolishing unemployment in India.. The central point, and therefore the main problem before India, is how to raise the purchasing power of the masses ? Do we follow the method of socialist countries, or some other method ?